No finding of elevated risk in a report days before a fatal earthquake.

A group of six seismologists were convicted of manslaughter by an Italian court today for their role in the preparation of a risk report on seismic activity in L'Aquila, Italy. The report, which was generally regarded as reassuring, was released about a week before an earthquake struck the town, killing over 300 people. Initial reports indicate that the scientists have been sentenced to six years in prison.

The town of L'Aquila sits on a major fault line, and had been struck by several swarms of small magnitude earthquakes. The Italian government had organized a risk-assessment committee, which included seismologists (including the former head of the National Institute of Geophysics) and government officials. In the week before the earthquake struck, the group told the public that the high incidence of smaller earthquakes were not necessarily precursors of a larger quake. They did, however, also mention that earthquakes were unpredictable, and that building codes in the area needed to be adjusted to provide better seismic safety.

Reportedly, one of the Italian government officials took matters a step further, declaring that there was no danger, and suggesting that the smaller earthquakes had relieved stress on the fault.

A week later, L'Aquila was struck by a 6.3 magnitude quake, which devastated the area's older buildings. Reportedly, a number of the people who were killed in the event had stayed indoors because they believed that the quake did not pose a threat. The relatives of the deceased have helped drive the prosecution, and several were present in the court during the trial.

Although the trial has been portrayed as prosecuting scientists for failing to do the impossible—namely, predict an earthquake—the reality is somewhat more complicated. The scientists, in this case, were asked to produce a formal evaluation of risk in response to a specific series of quakes. Their analysis arguably reflected a reasonable interpretation of events, although some have suggested that it did not reflect the most current information we have about the role of small quakes in building larger strain on faults.

Any assessment of risk, however, assumed an oversized importance, given the environment in which it was released. Not only was there a panicked public, but an amateur seismologist was reportedly predicting large quakes in the area at regular intervals. And, in this case, the scientists' evaluation was presented to the public by a government official with no expertise in seismology (he was also convicted in the same verdict). And it's clear that, even if their report had understated any well established risks, they would never have been prosecuted had the quake not killed anyone, a result that was probably the product of centuries-old buildings as much as anything else.

The prosecution had attracted widespread condemnation from the scientific community, with one petition on behalf of the seismologists attracting over 5,000 signatures. But, shockingly, the judge in the case took only a few hours to deliver the verdict, and handed down sentences that were two years longer than those requested by the prosecutor. Appeals will undoubtedly be forthcoming.

Let me get this straight... they ask scientists to predict what is fundamentally unpredictable, then jail them when they get it wrong? Then, they throw in some bureaucrat caught in the middle?

I guarantee that every future "earthquake risk" report released in Italy will describe a "high and inescapable risk of catastrophic earthquakes within the next 10 years." At least that way when they're wrong, they won't go to prison.

Any bets on whether the politician that actually made the damaging claims that 'all is well' will ever face any prosecution?

I think you need to the article a little better "the scientists' evaluation was presented to the public by a government official with no expertise in seismology (he was also convicted in the same verdict)"

In related news, Italian seismologists are no long collaborating with local government on earthquake preparedness. In related news a local MD was sentenced for 5 years in jail for manslaughter for misdiagnosing bronchitis as allergies. Near death, the victim refused to go back to the hospital because, his bed was comfy and the doctor said thing were fine.

I guarantee that every future "earthquake risk" report released in Italy will describe a "high and inescapable risk of catastrophic earthquakes within the next 10 years." At least that way when they're wrong, they won't go to prison.

...until they get convicted for causing panic and social unrest or whatever else for predicting false positives. good luck getting any italian scientist to serve on any government panel like this about anything ever again.

Any bets on whether the politician that actually made the damaging claims that 'all is well' will ever face any prosecution?

I think you need to the article a little better "the scientists' evaluation was presented to the public by a government official with no expertise in seismology (he was also convicted in the same verdict)"

Awwww damn, you're completely right - I've completely missed that part (the risks of reading an article on a 320x240 screen)

Let me guess, these homes were not up to the building codes in the area, much less what would be the suggested improved building codes for better seismic safety.

Sounds like the "government official" summerized the report to, "no immediate threat, requires work to improve safety" and told the public "We're good! No worries.", after which he pats himself on the back for getting out of some annoying paperwork.

I thought I read (but I may have misunderstood) that the reason they were convicted was not so much that they were wrong. It was that they didn't really do a study. They just kinda blew it off and just "yeah, everything will be fine". (Er, I'm editorializing here a bit, but...) Essentially that they were negligent.

/If/ that is the case, then I can understand the convictions. But I may have misunderstood or misread...

This area can at least take heart in the fact that the next earthquake risk report they ask for won't have any problems with it. Because no scientist with half a brain will ever write one for them again.

I don't know much about Italian law, but is there anyway they can appeal this ruling to a higher court? Because if they can, then hopefully the next Judge will realize the current ruling is BS. The seismologists definitely don't deserve to be punished for doing their jobs properly. After all, it isn't their fault the government official who presented the evaluation of their work was an idiot. (He, at least, needs to be slapped with a penalty for completely screwing up, though calling that manslaughter is still way too much of a stretch.)

The scientists didn't say there wouldn't be a quake. They said given the history in the area, a major quake was unlikely. They also noted that earthquake prediction is not 100% accurate and that there was still a possibility of a major quake. And because a major quake could happen, building codes should be improved.

That is a wholly accurate and reasonable position to take.

The government official that wrote up the scientists report appended his own ignorance to the report and declared the area to be safe. The government official has some degree of fault. But he isn't an expert in the first place.

The fault lies in whoever gave the government official the power to append uneducated comments to a scientific report.

Since these events are sometimes refereed to as 'Acts of God', shouldn't the Pope be tossed in the clink as well? Makes about as much sense.

If the Pope said there's little to no risk, then maybe, but pretty sure he's more on the side of warning people that life is short because things like this happen.

It doesn't sound like there was necessarily gross negligence on the part of the scientists, and that's the only thing that would justify the conviction/sentence. It's a little conflicted at least, obviously the guy saying there's no risk is wrong, but it seemed like that was balanced with mention of the inherent unpredictability of earthquakes, and mention of the inability of local buildings to handle an earthquake.

Dr Jordan argues that a focus on prediction rather than forecasting held sway in Italy in the days before the quake at L'Aquila. He says that the seven members of the commission concentrated on refuting the predictions made by Gioacchino Giuliani, a laboratory technician at the nearby National Institute of Nuclear Physics, who claims to have developed a method for predicting earthquakes that involves measuring emissions of radon. His public pronouncements reportedly caused panic in the nearby city of Sulmona two days before the meeting of the commission (no big earthquake followed on that occasion). The members of the commission therefore, according to Dr Jordan, “got trapped into a conversation with a yes/no answer”. The result, he says, was that the commission gave the impression that there would be no quake.

1. If there were any black spots on these scientists' bodies, since that would mean that were in cahoots with the devil.2. Were they able to recite the lord's prayer without error?3. If they floated while tied to a wooden plank?

If they failed any of these tests, I believe the Italian authorities have the right to hang them or burn them as they see fit.

This area can at least take heart in the fact that the next earthquake risk report they ask for won't have any problems with it. Because no scientist with half a brain will ever write one for them again.

I was thinking they'd just hedge big-time: "With 100% certainty, we can assure you that there will be no earthquakes during the period between earthquakes."

Wait. The problem, the whole point was not predicting the unpredictable.

I had to read the linked article from the Economist - link keyword "declaring" - to see what you are talking about:

Quote:

Fabio Picuti, the public prosecutor, stresses that the charge is not about whether the experts ... should have predicted exactly when, where and with what force the earthquake would have struck. He recognises that is something which remains beyond the bounds of science. Instead, he says, the seven are guilty of negligence because they did not take the risk of a big quake seriously enough. He argues that their discussions, as recorded in the official minutes of the meeting of March 31st, were too generic and completely failed to address the risk at hand.

Punishing sloppy science doesn't equate to being anti-science, and neither does demanding moral accountability from scientists. The punishment here strikes me as pretty extreme -- I'd be surprised if they actually serve any real time after the appeals -- but reflexively circling the wagons isn't particularly helpful.

The scientists did not conduct sloppy science. Their predictions were reasonable given the available information. Their recommendations were also accurate.

These scientists are being scapegoated and punished for acts of nature.

I don't even really know what to say to this. The judge should be removed, punished, and the Italian government should take a serious look at how they let something like this happen. It's embarrassing, and it puts their citizens at greater risk in the future, because no sane scientist will ever speak up in Italy again.